(September 29, 2015 at 11:48 am)Esquilax Wrote: Regarding this whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," bit, it might be comforting for those who want to hold beliefs for which there is an absence of evidence, but, well... an absence of evidence is exactly what you would expect to find for a claim that is not true.
So at best, the claim for which you're wheeling out that canard to defend is indistinguishable from an untrue thing; still not something you could be justified in accepting as true. Honestly, it doesn't go as far as you need it to in defending your unevidenced assertions, and one can't help but suspect that if you actually had anything to bring to the table you wouldn't think it as cogent as you seem to.
Not to mention, if you're using that reasoning as a defense of your claim, then you're shifting the burden of proof by requiring that others provide evidence against an assertion that you've just acknowledged has no evidence for it before you'll let go of the claim. So it's either that "absence of evidence..." means nothing and does nothing to further your position, or it's actively a logical fallacy. You might as well just not say it at all, really.
But I don't actually believe there is an absence of evidence. I simply state that for YOUR benefit since YOU believe there is no evidence.
Oh, there IS evidence, alright...lots of it. But not coercive evidence that FORCES you to believe.
